Second Ave. Sagas

DOT set to study Red Hook trolley plans

Written by

Benjamin Kabak

in

Could Brooklyn streetcars, now employed in San Francisco, make a return? (Photo by flickr user phrenologist)

Brooklyn, once the borough of streetcars, may see a nostalgic return to its transit-rich past if House representative Nydia Velazquez has her way. After sitting on $300,000 Velazquez appropriated for the NYC DOT in 2005, the Department of Transportation has announced plans to use this money on a study examining light rail or streetcar service for the now-isolated Red Hook area. Even though DOT has yet to get the study off the ground, Velazquez has already requested a House transit bill the $10 million the project is estimated to cost, reports The Post.

Rich Calder has more:

The city Transportation Department expects to select a consultant within the next two months to study running the mile-long line from the Red Hook waterfront to Atlantic Avenue at the edge of Brooklyn Bridge Park, which is in walking distance to several subway and bus lines. The study could also look at extending the route another half-mile east, directly to the transit hub at Borough Hall…

Velazquez said the project is crucial for Red Hook, since the isolated neighborhood is facing brutal service cuts to its already-limited bus service — the B61, B77 and B71 lines. The neighborhood has no subway; its nearest train line — the F — is more than a mile away….

Nearly a decade ago, the BHRA proposed a trolley route running from existing tracks at the Van Brunt Street waterfront, north up Richards Street and then Columbia Street, before hitting the park at Atlantic Avenue and then heading east to Borough Hall. Light-rail lines are much cheaper and quicker to build than subway lines and use far less energy. They run on existing streets, normally without the need to eliminate parking spots

For reasons that remain opaque, New York City has been resistant to the idea of bringing back a street-based system of transit that can outpace the sluggish bus system. A plan to incorporate light rail along 42nd St. has earned headlines as a novelty act, but few within the transit community and without take this idea seriously. Why not, I ask. After all, light rail is cheaper and more efficient than subway construction is today.

The Brooklyn waterfront and Red Hook, in particular, are ideal grounds for a light rail trial, but the DOT and MTA have to get it right. Most vital, as I discussed last year, are the connections between any new surface transit system and the current public transportation infrastructure. According to The Post, one route under consideration would rune from Red Hook to Atlantic Ave. along the waterfront with a terminal that is within “walking distance” from “several subway and bus lines.” The edge of the Brooklyn Bridge Park is a significant walk from the subway, and that’s simply not good enough.

Rather, the streetcars should take riders directly to the subway system. Unless DOT wants to construct a very thorough light rail system that services central business areas and provides interborough connections, it must connect Red Hook to either the F/G stop at Smith and 9th Sts. or Borough Hall (or both). Intermodal connections are key.

Of course, streetcars and light rail come with a downside. Unless the city is willing to build a San Francisco-Embarcadero style system with dedicated rights of way, streetcars are beholden to surface traffic ebb and flow. They are, in effect, buses on rails. They can’t navigate around car accidents or other stalled streetcars. They provide access but not speed or flexibility.

With subway construction in New York City prohibitively expensive these days, the city must look to other options in an effort to increase its transportation network. With this six-month study, something is finally getting a look it deserves. I’m not going to start waiting around for streetcars to return to Brooklyn quite yet though.

Comments

29 responses to “DOT set to study Red Hook trolley plans”

  1. Peter Smith

    all you folks are too focused on speed. give me dignified transit, and some bike lanes, and we’ll work the rest out.

    Reply
  2. David Robertson

    Yes they should come back, in modern looks like the Sydney’s Metro they should complement the bus & subway as part of the transportation in easing the congestion and saving the planet from pollution [they should not be exclusively for Brooklyn].

    The opaque reasons are clear – people with inflated egos need to be cajoled, paid homage and kowtow.

    Remember – “I can think of only once in the last eight and a third years where we held for more than a minute or two,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “I never find any service interruptions.” – let him ride any bus on fifth avenue from his house on 79th Street down to City Hall – it will never happen, only in an election time and what a surprise an infant or a toddler would be onboard for a photo op.

    Reply
  3. Christopher

    SF’s system, especially on Market Street where the picture is from, shares a right of way with cars. Does it slow it down? At times, although Muni’s slowness is really for a whole host of other things most related to being cash-strapped and unable to deploy the number of cars it would need to effectively lower headways. Streetcars in Brooklyn would be ideal, they are excellent generators of economic development as their are more connected with the streetscape and thus the retail and other businesses along the street.

    DC right now is planning (and laying track) for an extensive network of streetcars in that city. They have a long standing debate about overhead wires in DC — they are banned by Federal statute — so powering streetcars inside the tradiional L’Enfant city is a debate right now. But DDOT is working through that issue.

    Reply
    1. Marcus

      SF has a mix of subways, dedicated right of ways and shared right of ways. The F line, which uses the vintage street cars, has a shared right of way on Market street and a dedicated right of way on the wider Embarcadero. Other lines, like the N Judah, for example, are underground along Market Street and only emerge when they get out to the more residential western neighborhoods.

      Without any dedicated right of way, a streetcar is a glorified bus. It need not have its own right of way for its entire route, but it should be able to bypass at least some congestion or there is little point.

      Reply
  4. Scott E

    When I first read the headline, the part that stuck out to me was “DOT”. What, this would be a DOT and not an MTA operation? Then I read a quote which suggests its needed to compensate for “brutal service cuts to its already-limited bus service — the B61, B77 and B71 lines”.

    An interesting thought, but somehow I doubt the city would ever build and operate its own infrastructure to fill in the gaps of the existing MTA infrastructure. Yes, they did it with the Staten Island Ferry, but there’s a complex story behind that one.

    It’s a nice thought, though.

    Reply
  5. Josh K

    Does anyone know why the DOT shut down the Brooklyn Historic Railway Association’s efforts to do this very project, back in 2003? The BHRA had acquired 16 PCC Streetcars from Buffalo and was in the process of building out the tracks when the DOT revoked the approval.

    Reply
  6. Marc Shepherd

    How are streetcars better than buses? They have to share the public right-of-way, so they cannot move any faster than traffic in general. Yet, because they run on rails, they cannot alter their route in case of an accident.

    Reply
    1. Scott E

      All true. But also, electric vehicles have more power than their diesel counterparts, which is a big reason they’re used in the hills of San Francisco. I believe (no facts to back it up, though) that they’re less likely to break down because of stop-and-go patterns as well. They are also “greener” (for those who may care about that) and quieter. Further, people actually are (usually) smart enough to not double-park on the tracks… but that consideration will likely diminish quickly in NY.

      But I think there’s a certain nostalgic charm about streetcars that can revitalize an area.

      Reply
      1. BrooklynBus

        They do not have to share the public right-of-way. In fact, many of the stretcar lines in Brooklyn once had their own right of way (Coney Island Avenue, Ocean Avenue, and even part of Utica Avenue). When cars, became became popular, all these private right-of-ways were taken away, and one of the arguments for dicontinuing them in NYC was because of the shared rights of way. That’s why some remain in Boston, because they chose not to give up their private rights-of-way.

        Reply
        1. AK

          No streetcars in Boston have their own right of way, insulated from traffic. The outer edges of the Green Line subway are “above ground” and act similarly to streetcars. However, while the tracks are separated from the road, the Green Line actually has tons of stop signs and has to stop at red lights, and thus it takes forever to get to Boston College from downtown. In fact, I was headed to a football game there once and some Clemson fans remarked in perfectly pleasant Southern drawl, “I’ve never been on a train that had to stop at stop signs.” Indeed. The only other service in Boston that is similar to a streetcar is the Red line extension to Mattapan, which also lacks a dedicated right of way:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..Speed_Line

          Reply
          1. BrooklynBus

            The Green Line is a streetcar line on its own right-of-way with traffic signals and stop signs, exactly what once existed in New York on some streets back in the 1920s. It is not what we traditionally think of as a subway. What Boston decided to do was move some of the stations downtown underground around 1893 because of the heavy Downtown traffic. So in that sense, technically it is a “subway”. But in that sense, you also could call the Long Island Railroad and Metro-North “subways’ also because they have portions that run underground, although we never consider them as subways. The reason why the Green Line isn’t a subway is because the stations are not of subway height, and it used to use the same PCC cars as New York’s streetcar network. It does not use subway cars.

            I believe Boston gave up their private rights of way for streetcars, other than the Green Line, long after we did. I think I saw a few when I was there in the early 70s.

            Reply
    2. Bolwerk

      These don’t necessarily have to be problems on a comprehensive streetcar network, certainly not showstoppers. Nothing prevents streets from being dedicated to LRT and pedestrians without private cars.

      The main advantages of LRT are higher occupancy and lower operating costs. But, given our current lack of infrastructure, that comes at the price of a high initial capital cost.

      Reply
  7. W. K. Lis

    New York City (MTA) had a 2009 farebox recovery of 36%. Toronto (TTC) had a 2008 farebox recovery of 73.8%, with a streetcar fleet of 248. Hmmm. And they mostly run in mixed traffic.

    Reply
    1. Brandon

      Is that NYC or the MTA? The MTA covers the whole metropolitan area.

      Reply
    2. Alon Levy

      The 78% figure for Toronto is farebox operating, not farebox recovery. In 2008 the NYC subway had a farebox operating ratio of 67%; NYCT, including the buses, had a ratio of 55%.

      But sure, I agree with you that Toronto’s apples taste much better than New York’s oranges.

      Reply
      1. Frank

        Keep in mind that Toronto’s base fare is pretty high at C$3.00.

        I’ve only been to Toronto a handful of times, but as you say, it’s definitely apples to oranges relative to NYC. After sitting in traffic on the Queen streetcar enough times to know that walking is way faster, I think those apples are a bit sour.

        Reply
    3. Bolwerk

      The Subway portion was 67% back in 2008, but that was before the last fare hike – which may have brought it up closer to 75% or 80%. Buses were dismal at around 35%.

      http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdp…..s/2008.pdf

      But you’re right, streetcars may have to do with Toronto’s success. Rail vehicles have lower operating costs than buses – but that doesn’t always translate into higher farebox recovery.

      Reply
      1. Alon Levy

        It’s not 80%. The original Doomsday budget was supposed to raise farebox operating to 80%, but then the MTA bailout plan injected more subsidy into the system. It might be in the 70s after this year’s service cuts, though.

        Most of Toronto’s transit ridership is on the subway, or the buses. The streetcars are a minor portion of it.

        Reply
  8. SEAN

    The Portland streetcar is on it’s way to trippling it’s coverage area. If streetcars come back to the big apple, the city can call on Oregon Iron Works to build the cars as Portland already has.

    Reply
  9. BrooklynBus

    This is a great idea. In fact, I was just discussing it with someone the other day. If you are looking to connect this to the subway system and it should, I suggested as far back as the 1970s to include the Fulton Mall as part of this proposal. Virtually the entire route would have its own right-of way. I would eliminate all the buses currently on Fulton and Livingston Streets and build a bus terminal for them at Flatbush and Atlantic where there could be a convenient transfer to the light-rail for travel to Downtown Brooklyn, Brooklyn Bridge Park, and on to Red Hook. Considering the frequency of current bus service in Downtown Brooklyn, trolley service on the Mall portion could be justified at about two minute intervals or less, all day long. With all fares paid at the terminal and no fares at all along the mall or pre-payment at the shelters. This service would be fast, frequent, reliable and a boon for the economy.

    Reply
  10. Older and Wiser

    And while they’re at it, how about a scenic waterfront route from Williamsburg to Long Island City, maybe eventually onward to Astoria and LGA someday?

    Reply
  11. The Boss

    I recently traveled to SF and rode the same trolley car (pictured above) through the Embacardo District, which is the city’s waterfront, and I was wondering why NYC does not have a trolley system similar to SF’s? That’s because the city (NYC) is unwilling to build an “old technology” to run on its street.

    I say build it for the sake of the people of Brooklyn, who endure limited bus and subway service on a daily basis. If we can build the Empire State Building and Brooklyn Bridge why not a trolley line? Because City Hall is afraid of it, or because its to expensive. Building the SAS and ESA are more expensive than building a 1 mile (0.6km), two track line.

    I would also say that the line should build and operated by BHRA, instead of the MTA. Because, I know the people of Red Hook, Gowanus and the other neighborhoods would not like the cash-strapped MTA touching their trolley line.

    As a native of the Bronx (home of the Yankees), I could imagine this type of trolley line running up and down Third Avenue from 149th Street to Gun Hill Road, providing a speeder and less polluting service than the Bx55, which replace the Third Avenue El in 1973.

    Reply
  12. Peter Smith

    the F line down Market has a shared right of way with buses, taxis, cops, and illegally-driving tourists only. really, the only thing that slows them down is a lack of signal priority. give them priority, and you’ve got a world-class transit system on your hands. again.

    that said, i thought everyone was already on board with the big bus rapidly responding responsibly and reliably to transititus for free (BRRRRTFREE) or something — no? i heard it’s free – is that true? listen, like the FTW admin said, why build trains when you can have buses? don’t you prefer buses? i know i do. i dream about buses. just had another one rip apart some cyclist the other day in Oakland, and some other girl in your city, i think, got degloved — you know, where the skin, tissue, muscle, nerves, and fascia are peeled away from the body the way a glove would be removed from a hand? yeah, that one. buses are awesome. i hear London is going to double the height of their buses — double the height, for double your bone-crushing, skin-shaving pleasure.

    besides, streetcars are overrated. so what if almost everyone hates buses and loves streetcars? who cares? people are cattle — they’ll ride the way we want them to ride. and then we’ll give an award to whichever transit agency puts the most biggest buses of them all on the biggest concrete-brokenest roads. it’ll be awesome. again.

    Reply
  13. Adam

    I don’t want this to be a heritage streetcar. I would support this if they used modern low floor trams like they do in Portland and Seattle and Barcelona, among other places.

    Reply
  14. Anon256

    I am surprised they don’t mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobble_Hill_Tunnel , which runs from the proposed terminus straight to Downtown Brooklyn. One of the primary objective benefits of streetcars over buses is increased ability to take advantage of dedicated right-of-way like that.

    Reply
  15. Kpax

    Ever been to Berlin? Its transit system is tenfold more complex and chaotic than NYC. Yet, the Germans somehow make it work. They did a relatively decent job integrating East and West Berlin’s disjointed mass transit networks. They kept East Berlin’s tram network, modernized it and even extended a couple lines into West Berlin with convenient connections. The MTA can surely reboot a tram network focused in Brooklyn with access to Manhattan via a subway connection or a direct line to a transit hub in Manhattan. Second thought… the MTA couldn’t even integrate its predecessor subway companies effectively.

    Reply
  16. Curt Sampson

    I would keep buses, as well as streetcars, in mind for this project. Many of the so-called “benefits of streetcars” listed here are not actually streetcar benefits, but infrastructure benefits that are applicable to buses as well.

    Both streetcars and buses can be trolleys, that is, powered by overhead electrical service. Trolleybuses probably have the advantage here as the technology is well developed, fairly widely used (though in only three cities in North America) and offers advantages such as the availability of dual-mode buses that can operate significant distances without overhead power when necessary (for rerouting around small disasters, for example).

    Both streetcars and buses can use all-door boarding (via either stations where the fare is paid at the entrance or the honor system) in order to spend less time waiting at stops. Both can operate either with other traffic or in dedicated rights of way. Streetcars are inherently guided; guidance systems are available for buses (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus ). Buses have the advantage of being able to route around stopped traffic and accidents.

    Personally, I think if you used equivalent infrastructure (especially an electric trolley system, stations, all-door boarding and perhaps separated right of way) and had nice, modern low-floor buses, people wouldn’t really notice much difference between them and streetcars. So the real question is: what would be the capital and maintenance costs for two equivalent systems?

    But for all this, I do agree that streetcars do have more nostalgia value.

    Reply
    1. Anon256

      Streetcars can have higher capacity with multiple articulated cars hitched together. They can run more easily in narrow dedicated rights of way like the aforementioned abandoned Cobble Hill tunnel or the light rail tunnels in Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco. They generally provide a smoother and more comfortable ride than buses, and in theory are more efficient due to lower wheel friction. On the other hand, they have a much higher initial capital cost than buses. And, as you noted, they can’t navigate around accidents and other obstructions.

      However, I think in New York the last problem might actually be a benefit: while the NYPD are clearly happy to use bus lanes as parking lots, one at least hopes they would not do the same with streetcar tracks!

      Reply
  17. Bob Diamond

    New Flash April 20, 2011- City DOT has SCUTTLED the Red Hook streetcar plan- AGAIN, the first time was in 2002. You can read their new lame excuses here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/do…..slides.pdf

    However, I respond to DOT’s current falacies as follows:
    There are some major facts about streetcar projects that NYC DOT doesn’t want you to know:

    What this “massaged” report doesn’t say, is that while it costs $41 per hour to run a streetcar, it costs NYCT $160 per hour to operate a bus. What the report doesn’t tell you, is that according to URS’s own experience in Portland, OR, it really costs $12 million per mile to build the streetcar line, not $26 million per mile as URS now claims. What DOT DID SAY in an email last Dec, is that URS and DOT project a 43% increase in Transit Demand in Red Hook. Another thing they don’t want you to know, is a new streetcar costs about $800,000. DOT wants you to think its over $7 million per car…

    Finally, the ultimate key fact that DOT doesn’t want you to know, is that a 2 mile start up line could be built for under $33 million, with $25 million coming from a special FTA grant for new streetcar projects, called a “TIGER Grant”.

    Dont believe me though, read what the prestigious American Public Transit Association (APTA) has to say of the TRUE costs of a new streetcar line here: http://heritagetrolley.com/art…..htm#Post11

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts